No stadium. Now what?

[Brian Fein]

When an owner says, in one breath, "I can't afford to do it" and then the next breath is "I'm donating 2 billion to charity" - they are counter-intuitive. 

I understand what you're saying, Mike, but you realize the politicians, and for the most part, the voters, look at it on the surface as what it is - a new stadium for the Dolphins.  The initial reaction is, and always will be, "yeah cause they can't even fill the one they have."

That, coupled with the Marlins stadium debacle - publicly funded and drawing 700 people per game - leans terribly on any future publicly-funded sports venues in Miami-Dade county.

Maybe they should try to host the Super Bowl in Marlins Park. I bet they could if they wanted to.  I doubt the NFL would since the stadium is built for baseball.

[MikeO]

When an owner says, in one breath, "I can't afford to do it" and then the next breath is "I'm donating 2 billion to charity" - they are counter-intuitive. 

He is giving away the money when he dies so it isn't subject to the estate tax. Seriously you don't realize why he is doing that? Not to mention you are going to knock a guy giving roughly $2 billion to charities that will help real people in meaningful ways? Priorities Brian...Priorities!

I understand what you're saying, Mike, but you realize the politicians, and for the most part, the voters,

Maybe in some countries these days but not in this one anymore. Without turning this into a political discussion I will just leave it at that

Maybe they should try to host the Super Bowl in Marlins Park. I bet they could if they wanted to. 

It ONLY holds 36,000 people...come on Brian lets be realistic about things here!

[Brian Fein]

^^ I wasn't serious about Marlins Park.  Jeez.

[MikeO]

^^ I wasn't serious about Marlins Park.  Jeez.

kinda sounded like you were

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Name the owner (in any sport) who in recent times has paid 100% for a new a stadium and NOT taken/used public money? Those days of that being a realistic option are long gone!  This isn't the 70's and 80's....those days are over with.

Robert Kraft. 

Stadium was 100% privately funded.  Tax dollars did pay for road improvement, but not the stadium.  That was in 2002, not the 70s or 80s.

[Sunstroke]

^^ I wasn't serious about Marlins Park.  Jeez.  

I have a pretty highly-tuned sarcasm radar...but your comment definitely flew under it. I thought you were seriously speculating on Marlins Stadium as well.

Maybe in some countries these days but not in this one anymore.  

I think you may be mistaken on this one. I've actually heard multiple people at local sports bars make similar comments about "not being able to fill this stadium, so why would they need to build a new one?"  While this may not be logical, or even applicable to the political process, we're not talking about logic on this particular point...we're talking about public opinion, which doesn't always follow logic.

[Brian Fein]

I was semi-serious about it at first, it was in response to the claim that only new stadiums get major events.  I guess sarcasm is lost in the typing, after re-reading it.  With the vocal inflection in my head it made more sense.  I'm not sure how I could change it to reflect what I meant.  Whatever, screw you guys, I don't care.

[el diablo]

Name the owner (in any sport) who in recent times has paid 100% for a new a stadium and NOT taken/used public money? Those days of that being a realistic option are long gone!  This isn't the 70's and 80's....those days are over with.

Pac Bell Stadium (S.F. Giants) and the newly proposed Warriors arena.

The days of owners claiming they need public dollars to build a stadium, while pricing out average consumers are coming to an end. The man has $4 billion. With a B. I can't blame an owner for wanting to maximize profits while minimizing risks. That's why you go into business. But I can't blame a public for not wanting to go along with it.

[MikeO]

I think you may be mistaken on this one. I've actually heard multiple people at local sports bars make similar comments about "not being able to fill this stadium, so why would they need to build a new one?"  While this may not be logical, or even applicable to the political process, we're not talking about logic on this particular point...we're talking about public opinion, which doesn't always follow logic.

Once again the stadium isn't only for the Dolphins! It's not about the Dolphins "filling the stadium." Small picture thinking. It's a partnership with the community. It would be a used for major events (non Dolphins related) that would bring in millions upon millions into the local community and help the citizens of that community economically.

[MikeO]

Pac Bell Stadium (S.F. Giants) and the newly proposed Warriors arena.

The days of owners claiming they need public dollars to build a stadium, while pricing out average consumers are coming to an end. The man has $4 billion. With a B. I can't blame an owner for wanting to maximize profits while minimizing risks. That's why you go into business.

So we have 1 MLB park in the last 4 decades that is privately funded. we have 1 NFL park in recent times that is privately funded. And until the Warriors arena is built and the team moves (which won't be till 2018 at the earliest )...it doesn't count! I stand by my statement expecting a major sports owner to build his own place is unrealistic these days. There are always an exception here and there (the fact we only have 2 examples in 4 major sports prove it's just here and there) but it ain't the norm!

But I can't blame a public for not wanting to go along with it.

You are ASSUMING they didn't want to go along with it. The public never had a say!!

[Brian Fein]

Actually, if it was put to a vote I believe the public would have put it through.  Most of the people I talked to were overwhelmingly in support of it.

[MikeO]

Actually, if it was put to a vote I believe the public would have put it through.  Most of the people I talked to were overwhelmingly in support of it.

I agree!! Whenever these things are put to a public vote they pass 9 times out of 10. Sports are a drug in this country. People need their drugs!

[Sunstroke]

Once again the stadium isn't only for the Dolphins! It's not about the Dolphins "filling the stadium." Small picture thinking. It's a partnership with the community. It would be a used for major events (non Dolphins related) that would bring in millions upon millions into the local community and help the citizens of that community economically.

Please go back and re-read Brian's original statement, and my own corroboration of that statement, rather than just throwing out random cliches like "small picture thinking." That point that he made (and I supported) has nothing to do with partnering with the community, or using the stadium for other major events. No one is arguing those points with you.  With that said, the response of the general public, when faced with the proposition of building a new stadium, is quite often "why build a new stadium, when they can't even fill the one they've got?" This isn't a debate about the pros and cons of the new stadium, it's an observation of individual fans' reactions to the proposal of the new stadium.  It's not even support for that "opinion of the masses." Unless you're sitting in the same sports bars and other public venues that Brian and I are sitting in, and hear something different from the masses than we're hearing, then there isn't anything for you to contest here...

[el diablo]

So we have 1 MLB park in the last 4 decades that is privately funded. we have 1 NFL park in recent times that is privately funded. And until the Warriors arena is built and the team moves (which won't be till 2018 at the earliest )...it doesn't count! I stand by my statement expecting a major sports owner to build his own place is unrealistic these days. There are always an exception here and there (the fact we only have 2 examples in 4 major sports prove it's just here and there) but it ain't the norm!


You are ASSUMING they didn't want to go along with it. The public never had a say!!

You're right, Mike. It isn't the "norm" for owners to pay for their own stadiums. Just like it wasn't the norm for the public to foot the bill. As owners got richer, they got smarter. The realized avenues available to them that were available for other industries. It used to be federal dollars that directly subsidized these ventures. Until Congress acted which resulted in more local & state involvement in funding. However, the public is also getting smarter. Like, when a proposed tourist tax hike has a shortfall. Where do the rest of the funds come from? Baltimore proposed using lottery funds, like with Camden Yards. Assuming there would be an influx of lottery purchases. Only when that doesn't happen, funds are taken from other areas. Such as funding for other local services. So when owners cone out and say, "This new tax won't cost the local taxpayers a dime."  Locals ask, "How can you or anybody guarantee that?" They can't. There assuming there would be an influx of tourist dollars. Maybe during a Super Bowl. But what about other years? What about 15 years after the renovations when the stadium is placed out of the loop?

To go along with Brian's point. They can't sell out the stadium as it is now. That creates a problem. If they sold out every week, and had a waiting list it might be sold to the public as a needed expansion.  Which creates a new problem. New stadiums don't expand general seating. They expand luxury suited. Great for the owner. Not so much for the average fan. Especially when they get the right to pay more for the experience of the new stadium.

True, the locals didn't get to have a say this time. There's no way to know which way they would've voted. Just like ownership would've been banking on the uninformed voter, don't underestimate the number of informed voters. I will give the Dolphins credit for wanting to put it up to the local voters. When the norm used to be resolved by a city council vote.

[Landshark]

True, the locals didn't get to have a say this time. There's no way to know which way they would've voted.

The locals didn't get to have a say because ONE MAN decided they shouldn't.  In other countries, a guy like that would be known as a dictator.